What's the deal with Republicans and rail?

Sunday

Apr 27, 2014 at 2:00 AM

Three years ago, we watched in amazement as newly elected Republican governors turned down 100 percent federal funding, sometimes amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, to upgrade rail service between their major cities.

Douglas Rooks

Three years ago, we watched in amazement as newly elected Republican governors turned down 100 percent federal funding, sometimes amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, to upgrade rail service between their major cities.

In Wisconsin, Scott Walker rejected grants to create high-speed service between Madison, the capital, and Milwaukee, the state's largest city. In Florida, Rick Scott refused funding for an Orlando-to-Tampa line, which would have been a particular boon to Florida's huge retired population.

The reason, it appears, was that amid the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s, and nearly non-existent business investment, these Republicans simply couldn't admit that sometimes federal spending is justified, even helpful.

An even stranger case was developing in New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie canceled an $8.7 billion Port Authority train tunnel into Manhattan that included $3 billion in federal funding and was badly needed in a region where many people don't own cars. The tunnel plan, in development for 20 years, was suddenly blocked, much to the consternation of New Yorkers across the East River.

This, too, seemed to make no sense. Yet, as we now know, Christie wasn't just having a fit of pique.

E-mails uncovered in the "Bridgegate" investigation — where Christie appointees shut down access to the George Washington bridge, the nation's busiest, apparently in retaliation against the mayor of Fort Lee's decision not to endorse Christie's re-election — also shed light on the tunnel decision.

Christie had a problem. On entering office, he discovered an empty highway account, yet he'd already pledged never to raise fuel taxes while also promising to improve highways and bridges.

The road projects involved, including Newark's aging Pulaski Skyway, shouldn't have qualified for Port Authority money designated for the train tunnel. Only projects linking the two states normally get funded.

But with the single-mindedness Christie often displays, he pushed the Port Authority to shift the tunnel funding to New Jersey-only bridges. He had his cake and ate it too.

What does this have to do with Maine? Gov. Paul LePage, despite his distaste for other state spending, hasn't raised objections to rail funding. In fact, refusal of states like Florida and Wisconsin to take the cash led to a second allocation for Maine, funding an extension of Amtrak service to Brunswick, which, like the original Downeaster, regularly exceeds ridership projections.

Then a month ago, LePage did something curious. Six months after the comment period ended, he weighed in on behalf of a Brunswick neighborhood association that's been fighting a $12 million maintenance facility next to the downtown station, in classic not-in-my-backyard fashion.

LePage had nothing new to say. He repeated the neighborhood group's arguments, almost word for word, in his letter. News accounts focused on his suggestion that moving the train shed to Brunswick Landing, the old Brunswick Naval Air Station now being redeveloped, would create more bang for the buck.

But that possibility had already been considered, and rejected, by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Extending tracks where there's no current rail service would be far more expensive and isn't even contemplated in Brunswick Landing's redevelopment plans.

LePage also appointed a neighborhood association member to the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority board, which may add heat to board meetings without yielding additional light.

For the association's arguments make no sense. The new train shed will remove the need for diesel engines to run for hours at a time during winter stops in Brunswick. This particular location is critical for extending service to Lewiston-Auburn, Augusta and Rockland, which now seems feasible.

And against arguments that the train facility will lower property values, in most cases being within walking distance of a train station increases them.

LePage isn't saying why he's intervening in this essentially local controversy. While the FRA diplomatically said it would "seriously consider" LePage's letter, it has no reason to change its earlier ruling of no significant environmental impact. Perhaps LePage has decided that train service, like wind energy and solar panels, is just something he doesn't want to see more of in Maine.

At one time, Republican members of Congress were Amtrak's strongest supporters. They intervened repeatedly during the Reagan years to keep this essential national service from being shut down.

Now that Amtrak ridership is growing again and it's clear we need to reduce energy use, this most efficient of transportation alternatives should be getting even broader political support. Instead, the opposite is happening.

The GOP governors first elected in 2010 are now up for second terms. It will be interesting to see the voters' verdict this time around.

Douglas Rooks is a former daily and weekly newspaper editor who has covered the State House for 29 years. He can be reached at drooks@tds.net.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
seacoastonline.com ~ 111 New Hampshire Ave., Portsmouth, NH 03801 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service